The Full PBS Newshour interview with Watts, Muller, Curry and others

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to the debate over the magnitude of climate change, its impact, and the human role in it.

Typically, the battle plays out among prominent climate scientists and a vocal group of skeptics. But one skeptic’s recent public conversion is adding new fuel to that fire and sparking criticism from both sides.

NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels has the story.

SPENCER MICHELS: Physicist Richard Muller and his daughter, Elizabeth, a mathematician, are not exactly household names.

But in the world of climate change, where most scientists and a much smaller group of skeptics remain bitterly divided over their assessment of what’s happening to the planet, Richard Muller has long been on the side of those who deny climate change is happening.

So, when he published an op-ed in The New York Times last month saying he was no longer a skeptic, it captured national attention and sparked angry reaction on both sides of the climate fence. Perhaps most disturbing to some of his former allies was this conclusion:

RICHARD MULLER, University of California, Berkeley: In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.

SPENCER MICHELS: Even those skeptics who accept that the climate is changing attribute it to natural cycles, but Muller even claimed his study was more conclusive in that regard than any that came before.

RICHARD MULLER: We really are in some sense coming out with a stronger conclusion than the prior group had come out with.

SPENCER MICHELS: Working out of their house in Berkeley, where Muller is a physics professor at the University of California, the Mullers formed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project.

Using funds partly supplied by the Koch brothers, who have also funded skeptical organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Mullers had long analyzed temperature data others had collected. But, for years, they said they hadn’t trusted that data.

RICHARD MULLER: I think many of the people working on this had convinced themselves that global warming was real and had lost some of their objectivity.

SPENCER MICHELS: But in their op-ed, the Mullers said that their latest research showed that the data from other climate change scientists was by and large correct.

ELIZABETH MULLER, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project: We used all of the data, or essentially all of the data, five times more than any other group had done. And after having done all of that, we determined that the previous — the previous studies on global warming had been about right. There was global warming of about one degree Celsius in the past 50 years. And that was a big surprise to us.

SPENCER MICHELS: The conclusion about a warming climate due to human actions matched what many other climate change believers have been saying, including William Collins, a senior scientist at Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He acknowledges that natural warming and cooling periods have occurred for eons, but the warming occurring now is off rhythm.

WILLIAM COLLINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: What we’re seeing now is occurring much faster. Rather than happening over tens of thousands of years, we’re seeing very rapid change occurring on just the time scale of a single century.

This timeline is showing how the temperature all over the globe has changed since the beginning of the 20th century. Look at how warm California has gotten, four or five degrees hotter than our historical climate.

SPENCER MICHELS: And, Collins concludes, man is a big contributor.

WILLIAM COLLINS: What man has been doing is enhancing the greenhouse effect by taking carbon dioxide that was formed over the last half-a-billion years and releasing that carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, back into the Earth’s atmosphere.

SPENCER MICHELS: Yet, many of those believers were annoyed that Muller’s conversion got more attention in the media than their reports have gotten in the past. They dismissed him as being publicity-hungry and adding nothing new to the debate.

Climate modeler and British Green Party member William Connolley called Muller’s study rubbish, saying they hadn’t added any knowledge to what had been done before. Skeptics were even more dismissive of Muller’s work.

Judith Curry, professor of earth sciences at Georgia Tech, who suspects natural variability accounts for climate change, not human-produced CO2, said Muller’s analysis is “way oversimplistic and not at all convincing.”

Even former ally Anthony Watts thinks Muller got it wrong. Watts works five hours from Muller in Chico, California. There, he runs a company supplying data and display systems to television weather forecasters and private individuals. He was trained as a broadcast meteorologist, though he has authored some papers with academic researchers.

His blog, “Watts Up With That?,” bills itself as the world’s most viewed sight on global warming and climate change. Watts believes all climate warming data, Muller’s included, is off because weather stations where temperatures are recorded have soaked up heat from their surroundings.

ANTHONY WATTS, Meteorologist: A brick building that’s been out in the summer sun, you stand next to it at night, you can feel the heat radiating off of it. That’s a heat sink effect. We have got more freeways, you know, more airports. We have got more buildings.

Yes, we have some global warming. It’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years, but what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide and what percentage of that is from the changes in the local and measurement environment?

SPENCER MICHELS: He also thinks believers have a hidden agenda.

ANTHONY WATTS: Global warming has become essentially a business in its own right. There are whole divisions of universities that are set up to study this factor. And so there’s lots of money involved. And so I think that there’s a tendency to want to keep that going and not really look at what might be different.

SPENCER MICHELS: It’s a charge climate change believers say is totally false. But many do agree with Watts’ criticism of Muller for presenting his report in a newspaper, rather than in a scientific journal.

ANTHONY WATTS: He has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.

RICHARD MULLER: In science, peer review means you give talks to the public. You send your papers to colleagues around the world. That’s what I did. Before I wrote my op-ed, we put all of our papers available on the Web.

SPENCER MICHELS: But the fight over climate change is anything but academic. Whether the politicians listen to the 97 percent of scientists who say that it is real or they pay attention to the vocal community of skeptics will determine to a large extent what regulations and what laws get passed.

Neither presidential candidate is talking about climate change, but, in Congress, it’s a different story; 74 percent of U.S. Senate Republicans publicly question the science of global warming, including Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who thinks it’s a hoax.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE, R-Oklahoma: Those people who really believe that world is coming to an end because of global warming, and that’s all due to manmade anthropogenic gases, we call those people alarmists.

SPENCER MICHELS: Polls show more than half the Republicans in the House are global warming skeptics. Many were elected with the Tea Party wave during the 2010 election.

In 2011, a Republican-dominated House committee defeated an amendment offered by Democrats simply acknowledging warming of the Earth.

Stanford University professor of communication and political science Jon Krosnick, who has polling on climate change for 15 years, thinks the skeptics are winning in Washington.

JON KROSNICK, Stanford University: The voices of skeptics on climate change are very loud in this country and particularly effective in Washington at the moment. But they’re a very, very small group.

Less than 10 percent of Americans are confidently skeptical about climate change at the moment. And yet that group expresses its points of view so often and so vociferously that I believe they have got Washington confused at the moment.

SPENCER MICHELS: He says his polls, taken nationwide, show many Americans still worry about climate change.

JON KROSNICK: From the very beginning, we were surprised that large majorities, and in some cases huge majorities of Americans, expressed what you might call green opinions on the issue. They said they thought the planet had been gradually warming over the last 100 years. They thought human activity was responsible for it. And they supported a variety of government actions because they saw it as a threat.

SPENCER MICHELS: Krosnick says that neither storms nor the recent drought that has been affecting the Midwest affect his poll numbers, which have remained steady for more than a decade.

However, other polls showed a significant decline in the number of Americans saying there is solid evidence global warming is occurring, a drop of 20 percent between 2008 and 2010, when belief started rising again.

And polls conducted by Gallup and other news organizations suggest the issue ranks lower on voters’ top priorities. Watts says polls can be manipulated by how the question is asked. He’s worried that those who believe in manmade climate change will have their way in Washington.

ANTHONY WATTS: Some of the issues have been oversold. And they have been oversold because they allow for more regulation to take place. And so the people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool as a means to an end. And so, as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren’t rooted in science, but more in politics.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Muller and others think action is exactly what is needed.

RICHARD MULLER: I expect we will have considerable warming. And I think, depending on the growth of China, between 20 years and 50 years from now, we will be experiencing weather that’s warmer than Homo sapiens ever experienced. And I tend to think that’s going to be bad and we should do something about it and we can do something about it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Doing something about global warming raises a host of other issues, including new regulations and the costs of reducing greenhouse gases, issues that inflame an already contentious debate.

SPENCER MICHELS: But the fight over climate change is anything but academic. Whether the politicians listen to the 97 percent of scientists who say that it is real
SPENCER MICHELS: Polls show more than half the Republicans in the House are global warming skeptics. Many were elected with the Tea Party wave during the 2010 election.
End
Pay lip service to the sceptic,but make sure to get the main thrusts in.Tea party(nut cases)and 97 percent of scientists agree.
Job accomplished.

RICHARD MULLER: “…In science, peer review means you give talks to the public….”
Are they saying that the public can be considered “peers”?
There’s a lot of “climate scientists” that are willing to talk to the public. Al Gore is willing to talk to the public. Mann is willing to talk to the public. Hansen is willing to talk to the public. They just won’t answer questions from the public.
And, once again, there’s the “…97 percent of scientists who say that it is real…” phrase. If I was a politician, I’d want to talk to the 3%. It’s been “97%” for a few years. After all this time, that 3 percent still aren’t convinced.

Muller finds five times as much data that shows exactly what 1/5 of the data already made clear, that the earth has warmed, and suddenly believes that since there is now five times as much data supporting the obvious, that the warming must now be attributed to human CO2?

Wow, the bandaid is a little late. I think most of his brains have already leaked out.
Where to start. First, it’s not about whether there is “warming”. Nobody disputes this seriously (except those who point out, quite rightly, that it is nonsense to speak of averaged temperature in a system not in thermal equilibrium as if it had some known significance). Second, this dingbat made a great show of bringing all players on board and then, when funding was in place, hunkered down and shut the same folks out. Finally, regardless of the outcome of his data analysis, he was not studying anything in the first place that would provide data for the conclusion he claims to have arrived at. It’s like studying the colour of clam shells and claiming that you can conclude something about the price of iPads.

RICHARD MULLER: In science, peer review means you give talks to the public. You send your papers to colleagues around the world. That’s what I did. Before I wrote my op-ed, we put all of our papers available on the Web.

CO2 must be causing the warming because we can’t find any other cause. We know it can’t be the fact that human cites now use more land than was used by all the cities and agriculture alone 150 years ago. If it was cities that were the cause, then we would need a cap and trade on cities.
Better to blame it on CO2. That way the taxpayer will to pay to move US factories to China and India to take advantage of the lower labor rates. It isn’t like the people in the US need jobs. They are all so rich they can simply live off their savings for the next 100 years. Didn’t Obama and Clinton promise to give the UN $100 billion to end global warming, so long as the Chinese would do their part?http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html
The administration provided the talks with a palpable boost on Thursday when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that the United States would contribute its share of $100 billion a year in long-term financing to help poor nations adapt to climate change.

Michels says: “97% of scientists”…not even “climate scientists” (whatever that means). even in CAGW-speak, Michels should have said “97 out of EVERY 100 climate SCIENTISTS”.
mind you, john cook went one better with his headline: “Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming”.
which then changed to “97% of climate scientists” in his first para:http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=734
this tired and discredited claim needs to be tested post-climategate 1 and 2. everyone by now knows or should know the claim wasn’t correct in the first place, and so much has been revealed since then.

I read the transcript Anthony. Wonderful job explaining the situation with the measuring instruments. It seems like people are beginning to understand the oversold nature of this issue and I loved the way you put “Global warming has become essentially a business”. It’s a business that thrives on millions of “believers”. Perhaps the perfect combination of business and religion.

When did Muller do research on attribution?
I always thought his project was about getting the definitive “Global Average Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature” for the past century or so, full stop.
Kurt in Switzerland

A disappointing (but typical) news report in that it represented the standard journalistic inability to really understand or discuss any of the core arguments (most of which are not very complicated). It falls into the he said/she said format, with the argument ‘settled\’ by quoting the totally misleading 97% of scientists figure, and with the lay-viewer no better informed.
Looks like Muller practices origami as thought therapy judging by his desk. Call it vanity, but if I had a TV company coming in to interview me about my ‘serious’ work, I would make some effort to tidy my desk (usually untidy), and least to give the impression of ‘tidy desk, tidy mind’. His is beyond ‘scatty academic’. Anthony’s fairs much better.
William Collins tells us temperatures are rising much faster than in ’10s of thousands of years’. And to support that argument? A graph showing temperatures have risen since the 1880s, and a map of the world swirling in fire and brimstone.
Anthony came over very well – professional, measured and wise.

Another disappointment:
Muller says: “In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.”
I don’t think I’ve heard any other AGW believer saying such an extreme statement. The report fails to make it clear that Muller’s work did not look at attribution, and therefore his statement is an opinion (rather than scientific deduction) which derives in no way from his (and daughter’s) BEST program work.

Muller made himself an enemy of the Hockey Team when he publicly lambasted Mann-made graphical representations of temperature reconstructions over the past millennium. The part where latter 20th C thermometer readings got grafted onto supposedly global proxies up to that point (in order to “hide the decline” in the otherwise cooperative proxies was what really raised Muller’s eyebrows. This, of course, endeared him somewhat to skeptics, who had known for some time about these and other sheMannigans.
But alas, it turns out Muller was a closet warmist all along. He sensed some time ago that he faced serious marginalization in the People’s Republic of Berkeley if the wrong conclusions were drawn, if he got too close to those questioning the authority and infallibility of the climate priesthood.
Kurt in Switzerland

“Vern Cornell says:
September 17, 2012 at 10:41 pm
We know forests are growing 30-50 percent faster than seventy years ago.
Nowhere is this taken into account. Perhaps this benefit is greater than the
temperature.”
Perhaps this is a benfit of temperature and increase in CO2.

…Richard Muller has long been on the side of those who deny climate change is happening.
Apart from the fact Muller was never a sceptic, this is clearly just another shameful attempt to smear sceptics as “deniers” of climate change. When will these people learn that name-calling does nothing for their credibility? Baffling.

There were a few gems:
Richard Muller “saying he was no longer a skeptic” – ha ha yeah right
“Rather than happening over tens of thousands of years, we’re seeing very rapid change occurring on just the time scale of a single century. This timeline is showing how the temperature all over the globe has changed since the beginning of the 20th century.” – Beginning? How does that fit into the CO2 hypothesis?
“Judith Curry, professor of earth sciences at Georgia Tech, who suspects natural variability accounts for climate change, not human-produced CO2” – I must be reading the wrong blog as I always thought she said that CO2 was responsible for at least some of the warming
“The voices of skeptics on climate change are very loud in this country and particularly effective in Washington at the moment. But they’re a very, very small group.” – Another non-scientist academic waffling – ha ha yeah right on man
“And I think, depending on the growth of China, between 20 years and 50 years from now, we will be experiencing weather that’s warmer than Homo sapiens ever experienced.” – lets just through in a made up number but choose one that is sufficiently long so it can’t be disproved

It looked to me as if the mess on Muller’s desk probably represented the muddle that is in his mind. He was never a skeptic. His ‘conversion’ was purely fabricated for political purposes to bolster ‘the Faith’. Anthony made a very good presentation in the short time available and had the handicap of having to swim upstream against the flow of misconceptions and prejudices that flowed from the PB Presenters.

Working out of their house in Berkeley…
Father and daughter living in the same house? Yes, situations like that do happen… But both Mullers sure seem to make enough to have their own places. Children tend to not live with their parents unless compelled to by circumstances.
What might make that not weird, and open to questionable and likely unwarranted speculation, would be a daughter acting as caretaker. Granted they likely have access to or could afford to pay for professional caretakers. And the only reason I can think of not to would be not wanting to reveal Prof. Muller needs a caretaker. Wikipedia says he’s 68. Has he been having any bouts of irrational babbling, his thoughts wandering and disconnected? Maybe some strange accidents and mishaps, with band-aids and bandages covering the injuries?
You know, there are several physical reasons for such, like cancer, heart problems, advanced diabetes, etc…
Of course he could also be her caretaker. Offhand it doesn’t appear she needs one.
(What I really have found weird is Wikipedia doesn’t have a personal details or family life section for Richard Muller. His entry never even mentions his daughter at all, which is very strange by Wikipedia standards. Even in the BEST entry, Elizabeth Muller, BEST co-founder and Executive Director, gets only one short line at the end of the “Team” list, with the familiar relationship not mentioned. It’s been mentioned many places in the public record, yet Wikipedia won’t mention it. Why?)

RICHARD MULLER, University of California, Berkeley: In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.
———-
If my memory serves the IPCC does not attribute climate change exclusively to human factors. It gives a percentage attribution.

RICHARD MULLER: We really are in some sense coming out with a stronger conclusion than the prior group had come out with.
————-
Only very slightly a stronger conclusion. It’s based on the same raw data and in effect validates the prior studies at least from an analysis method standpoint.
The results of these analysis techniques are not particularly sensitive to refinements.

Sorry Anthony…My comment at 1:21 was based on reading the first transcript. I had assumed it was a studio-style debate and that you were present. Now I read the second transcript I see that you were interviewed separately.

Great measured responses from Anthony…but have they been heard as such by anyone not from WUWT? What I missed most was that while Muller was (falsely imo) portrayed as a converted skeptic, Anthony was never shown as a converted warmist, even though he talked about it in the original interview.
I think that is a serious imbalance.
It would be nice to have a poll here, to find out how people came to WUWT – and whether they were once warmists – and what made them rethink.

If Muller denied that climate change was happening then the label ”Denier” was correct. Climates always change. The argument has always been about the mechanism. Realists accuse the sun, with suitable external and internal modifiers but the human input is questionable especially if anthropogenic CO2 is taken as a driver since the human proportion of the annual CO2 budget is so small and the questionable theory of the greenhouse effect.
Muller was never a sceptic as far as AGW is concerned.

It looked like Watts was treated with earned respect and not marginalized as much as I expected from PBS. PBS is firmly in the AGW camp.
Imho, Watts presented himself exceptionally well and more accurately represented the skeptic’s viewpoint than normally found elsewhere in the media.

RICHARD MULLER: I expect we will have considerable warming. And I think, depending on the growth of China, between 20 years and 50 years from now, we will be experiencing weather that’s warmer than Homo sapiens ever experienced. And I tend to think that’s going to be bad and we should do something about it and we can do something about it.
Errrr…………….Haven’t the previous four Interglacials been warmer than today by up to 5°C, therefore how can he claim that Homo Sapiens have never experienced such warm weather. What about desert dwellers around the world, have they not survived in extreme temperatures for years with little ill effects?
Anyhow, thanks to Professor Muller, I can now prove that fairies exist, as 97% of people believe they live at the bottom of the garden, & only three people have any doubt or disbelieve it, therefore by default fairies really do exist! Yippee, where’s my cheque, expense account, large staff payroll & research department? This stuff is easy peasy!

Hmm. The 21st century channel with 9-5 moderators. My comment is still stuck after 10 hours, and the number of comments remains at 24, where it was when I went to bed last night. Never mind, most of the comments were from the AGW fans.
Hate mail, Anthony? Just for putting the ‘other side’ so well? Sheesh!

Rosemary lives in Berkeley with her husband, physicist, Richard Muller, (http://muller.lbl.gov) and two college-aged daughters.

First paragraph of “Experience”:

Rosemary Muller founded Muller & Associates in 1976 and has served as President of Muller & Caulfield Architects since 1993. She has served as Principal in Charge and project designer for a wide variety of institutional projects. Recently she has won two awards for the design of Thousand Oaks School, a new $10M elementary school for Berkeley Unified School District.

Rosemary is not on the current roster of Muller & Associates, which does list “Richard Muller, President and Chief Scientist” and “Elizabeth Muller, CEO”. By the linked bio’s, Richard has been married to Rosemary for over 40 years, they have daughters Elizabeth and Melinda. And “Elizabeth has been with her husband Rahal for 13 years, and has a daughter, Layla.”
Three generations, including several well-paid professionals, living in the same house in Berkeley? Are they running a family commune?
And I still want to know why Wikipedia hasn’t noted Richard Muller’s family in his entry, at all.
For something interesting, on Richard Muller’s Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory page, he proudly mentions, with movies and pictures included, when he went to Burning Man in 2007. Willis Eschenbach should be glad to know that he and his fellow published climate scientist have something else in common.

“He also thinks believers have a hidden agenda.” It’s not what we THINK, it’s perfectly obvious from the emails where Jones, Mann, Trenberth et all DISCUSS their hidden agenda.
“defeated an amendment offered by Democrats simply acknowledging warming of the Earth.”
Note the phrasing. Warming is an automatic fact like gravity that doesn’t even need to be discussed. Skeptics refuse to “acknowledge” gravity.
This is what happens when you blithely assume Commies will treat you fairly. Crichton had it right 10 years ago when he offered to debate any Carbon Cultist on the air, PROVIDED BOTH SIDES COULD USE VISUAL GRAPHICS. Without that condition the Commies will always win, because they own all the microphones and all the writers.

Muller a sceptic??
Quote:
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
Quote:
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
Quote:
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003

I’ve spent hundreds of man-hours analysing and correcting data from Australia, which like the USA is about 2% of global land area. I sent the polished data to one of the peripheral BEST people. They seem not to have used it. There is NO WAY that I can can get Australan data to agree with the BEST global picture. Privately, I think they have been overwhelmed by a huge volume of data, lacking the time to repair it, accepted it with too many errors to check.
BTW, I’ve been to most of the Australian sites I’ve studied. Local knowledge can give so many “Ah Ha” moments, as Anthony found with poor siting of stations.
And the noise!!!! Try working complex equations with Wagner turned up high on the stereo. Better still, listen to Wagner (many of the dissenters seem to have Germanic names) and cull the noise from the data.

I do not like the imprecise use of language everyone seems to fall into. “Climate change” is warmist code for AGW. So, discussions about believing in climate change are intended to be winners for the warmists because who can deny the climate is not static? It’s pretty obvious the climate is changing, has changed and like will change in the future. All my favorite Michigan fishing holes got there by way of climate change. “Global warming” is the other code word a skeptic loses on. Do you believe in global warming? Sure, the last couple hundred years the globe has warmed. How much of it is caused by evil carbon pollution (another badly misused word), who knows.
I’m not sure why everyone seemed to use the same warmist code language with very imprecise meanings. As far as I can see the only folks who believe that climate shouldn’t change are the warmists. They also seem to believe they can control it.

Muller has never been a skeptic.
He just invented this detail because medias are always more interested by a conversion than by a person who keeps his opinion if it was well founded first place.
Just a known propaganda trick to become interesting for the medias and following be sure to get further funding for whatever he does.
Amusing how the journalists never do their work and don’t investigate on what is based this legend of Muller’s former “skepticism”.
If they did, they’d find that he has always been just an anonymous, average CAGW believer what would immediately remove him any interest 😉

I really am starting to get bored of this now luckily 97% of my mates didn’t give a sh1t in the first place so good luck trying to change their minds Muller.
Also 97% of scientist agree that if I married Carmen Electra my kids would only be 50% ugly.

Muller has never been a skeptic.
This is just a propaganda trick to make himself interesting for the media.
On the contrary he has always been just a mediocre, anonymous alarmist and counts on the proverbial laziness of the journalists to keep this legend of “converted skeptic” alive.
Amusingly it works as expected 😉

Massive Fire Tornado filmed at Alice Springs, Australia. 30m tall.
While they normally last only a few minutes, this one went on for over 40 minutes. Other sources say this area hasn’t had rain since April.
What more proof of damaging climate change does PBS need?
/sarc (obviously)

Working out of their house in Berkeley…
Father and daughter living in the same house? Yes, situations like that do happen… But both Mullers sure seem to make enough to have their own places.

IIRC, the report didn’t say they lived in the same house, just that they owned the house. It may be that technically “Muller & Associates” owns the house.
Who knows what devious financial arrangements exists in California families when it comes to affording housing?
The last time I was in the Bay area, a decade or so ago, a house in San Jose on a postage stamp sized lot went for $500,000.
Recent sales in Berkeley have been for $600K – $3.8M. http://www.berkeleyhomes.com/ I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re transferring ownership of the house to avoid probate costs in the future.
Or the news report got it wrong.

Wow. I was wondering how the US ‘public service’ media compared with the UK’s, and now I have my answer. This shower seem to have levered practically every major canard in the climate scene into that propaganda show, the BBC would be proud to have done the show.
“Muller was a sceptic”. Lie. Warming since 1753 “exclusively manmade”. Lie. “1° increase in 50 years”. Lie. “A much faster change than ever.” Lie. “97%.” Lie. “The voice of sceptics is very loud.” Lie. “Warmer than Homo Sapiens has ever experienced.” Lie. Plus, reading through it again, pretty slick editing to join all the lies together into one huge lying lie. Yep, the BBC would be proud to have done the show.
If anything, Anthony, you were too moderate and reasonable, though against odds like that anything else would have been suicidal.

A few questions:
If the temperatures went up say 0.4 degrees between 1910 and 1940 (or is this only for the US?) then why isn’t Mueller’s conclusion that 0.4 of the change in the last 50 years could be natural and that most of the other 0.6 is unusual (over a fairly short time span and with actual temp.’s not well understood)? Also Hansen said there is a 50 year lag period a few years back so how does that play into this equation? (I assumed he meant in the surface temp.’s but perhaps he was talking about SST’s?)

It has a please to listen to your interview Anthony. You are a gentleman.
I fully support your comment in the supplement interview that a significant number of people who were and are involved in post and past Climategate like activities did and do so as they believe it is necessary to create a scary extreme warming scenario to initiate action –noble cause corruption.
The noble cause is less noble if one includes unintentional consequences such as bankrupt countries, high unemployment, and food shortages caused by “green” energy scams. I would be interested in a PBS program discussing the mandated conversion of food to biofuel which is a reaction to the scary false extreme warming scenario created by James Hansen et al. The food to biofuel scam is a tragedy, a moral disgrace.
Comment: Why converting food to biofuel is a scam.
Limited land for agriculture. High energy input to convert food to biofuel. Increased food for biofuel results in massive loss of virgin forest as additional land is converted to agriculture. Consequences: 1) increased CO2 emission due energy inputs to convert food to biofuel and due to loss of virgin forest, 2) high energy costs, 3) starvation and mal malnutrition in third world countries, 4) Loss of habitat for wildlife. Win-win if the objective is to create chaos and more difficult conditions for humanity and to decrease habitat for wildlife.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/there-goes-the-biofuels-21-billion-dollar-industry-reality-bites-in-eu-draft/
This was PBS’s very first, tentative presentation of one basic issue concerning the extreme AGW paradigm. The earth based weather station data before manipulation is contaminated hence overstating warming. After manipulation the amount of warming is greater. If Muller and PBS were interested in temperature data manipulation question (which is as close to fraud as damn is to swearing) they could have compared satellite measurement of planetary temperature change to the earth based weather stations.
I wonder if and when PBS will have a session of the central issue concerning climate “change” : Is the planet’s response to a change in forcing negative (clouds in the tropics increase or decrease reflecting more or less sunlight off into space or is the planet’s response to a change in forcing to amplify the change (positive) feedback.
The science does not support extreme AGW. The planet is not warming in accordance with the IPCC predictions. The IPCC extreme AGW warming, general circulation models amplify CO2 warming (positive feedback). Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation from satellite vs ocean surface temperature indicates the planet resists warming or cooling changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics. The extreme warming IPCC predictions of 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2 require that the planet amplifies the CO2 warming which is positive feedback. If the planet’s feedback response to a change in force is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitude regions of the planet which will cause the biosphere to expand. There is no extreme AGW warming problem to solve.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/uah-global-temperature-up-06c-not-much-change/http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … …We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity…. …However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)…. …This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
Richard Muller: If you are interested in real science try analyzing the satellite data rather than than contaminated earth based weather stations that is later manipulated to further exaggerate. Also have a read through Lindzen et Choi’s feedback paper.

“And I think, depending on the growth of China, between 20 years and 50 years from now, we will be experiencing weather that’s warmer than Homo sapiens ever experienced.”
========
But we are told right now is the warmest period. Now we find that it has been much warmer in the past. How did human beings and polar bears survive? How do we know that the warmer past wasn’t the cause of human civilization? Otherwise we still might be living in caves.
What caused it to be much warmer in the past? How do we know it is a different cause today, if we don’t know why it was warmer in the past?

Bill says (September 18, 2012 at 6:20 am)
—–
I asked your first question in my comment on the PBS site, which is *still* sitting in a moderation queue after 14 hrs.
To the WUWT mods: you do an absolutely outstanding job!

” In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.”
Which solar system is he from? He thinks we invaded his planet? We started interstellar travel when? Color me skeptical.

Jon Krosnick’s polling data seems to be at odds with other polls. Of course he does not seem to be a disinterested party in this discussion. Several of his statements, though implied to be poll data, look to be only his opinions. It seems to clearly fit the PBS agenda to discount the skeptical point of view. At least other polls were mentioned in passing. The bottom line is that science has little to do with polls and the science is being mostly forgotten in all of this discussion.
Bernie

But in the world of climate change, where most scientists and a much smaller group of skeptics remain bitterly divided over their assessment of what’s happening to the planet, Richard Muller has long been on the side of those who deny climate change is happening.No he has not.Long been on the side of those who deny…?
Long?
He pretended to be a skpetic for what? About a year and a half?
Then went right back to being very public about being the warmist he has always been.
When you see such blatant lies told with such lack of shame …
BTW – “most scientists and a much smaller group of sceptics”? I’d like to see that census. There are more commenters on this single blog than there were among the “scientists” that Oreskes ginned her 97% from.

“WILLIAM COLLINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: This timeline is showing how the temperature all over the globe has changed since the beginning of the 20th century. Look at how warm California has gotten, four or five degrees hotter than our historical climate.”
Does anyone know of any reference for the claim of “four or five degrees hotter” for California? I’ve never heard of it before.

“Anthony was never shown as a converted warmist, even though he talked about it in the original interview.”
Good point. How many of us were at some measure looking at the warming in the later part of the 1900’s as something that was falsely being sold as a scam, then, after some real thought, realized it was a scam?

As to the thousand yard stare Muller presents, a typical side affect of statins. Permanent brain damage; slow death of the entire biology of the poor creature who willing falls for yet another scam. A willingness to swallow a lie in both realms.

I think the comments by Muller clearly illustrate the point that Anthony was making earlier that the warmists grossly exaggerate science and discredit all scientists when they make such dumb comments . When he says that humans exclusively [ this means humans alone ] contibuted to the warming since 1753, it means that humans stopped breathing or working between 1880 and 1935 and again 1945 to 1985 , two periods when there was no net warming at all. To claim that humans alone can make the global temperature go up and down as much as it does shows someone who should not be in the climate science business. He does not understand the basics of climates cience .

I found it interesting, telling even, that while they discussed the declining belief in global warming they didn’t mention once why that might be. We know from Anthony’s transcript that he had a mention of climategate at the very least.

ELIZABETH MULLER, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project: We used all of the data, or essentially all of the data, five times more than any other group had done. And after having done all of that, we determined that the previous — the previous studies on global warming had been about right. There was global warming of about one degree Celsius in the past 50 years. And that was a big surprise to us.
Henry says
Well, according to my dataset it was ca. 0.7 degrees K globally, over the last 50 years./
However,on further analysis of all my data, by looking at the deceleration of warming,
(especially if you look at maxima) , I can predict that we will drop by at least the same amount by 2039. That means all the ice on the arctic will freeze back, as it it did from 1925-1945.
Better buy yourselves some extra cloths. It is going to get colder. But some guys will be trying to fiddle with their instruments, as long as someone (believing) will give them some money for it.

Whatever Richard Muller’s virtues or failings as a scientist, I think his personal life should be off-limits in a discussion about facts and ideas. Speculations (and details) about his family are, in my view, entirely inappropriate for a distinguished venue like this blog.
/Mr Lynn

I would like to nominate this for unscientific quote of the month:
“RICHARD MULLER, University of California, Berkeley: In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.”
Just what sort of tea leaves did he pull that nonsense from? How did he prove that the earth isn’t damping the effect and it is actually worse? How does he know what the oceans did vs human at all?
I thought he was a scientist. When you read statements from Elizibeth saying that they were surprised the record showed warming, just what the hell did they think it showed? Don’t they read? Is that an admission that they believed multiple global temp records were pure fabrications? I don’t know anyone who made that stupid claim.
They demonstrate shocking ignorance of climate science followed by a new shockingly ignorant claim in quotes. Seems to me that they might want to stop talking before they say something even stupider.

Can someone please explain how Muller’s investigation of the temperature record could cause someone to suddenly believe that temperature rise is mostly due to CO2?
It makes sense that a hard look at temperature data can answer the question of “warming, or no warming”, but why would such a look convince someone of the cause?
And when did Muller EVER think that warming wasn’t mostly due to CO2? Muller clearly states in his famous video that he believed that CO2 was causing most of the warming.

****RICHARD MULLER, University of California, Berkeley: In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.
****
Is he serious? So at his first sentence, I stopped reading him.

wobble says:
Can someone please explain how Muller’s investigation of the temperature record could cause someone to suddenly believe that temperature rise is mostly due to CO2?
It couldn’t, and it didn’t.Muller was never a skeptic. He is warmist and always was a warmist, and only briefly pretended to be otherwise for the propaganda value and publicityAnd when did Muller EVER think that warming wasn’t mostly due to CO2?
Never.Actually, is it possible that Muller was taking such heat for his famous video that he decided to make his current claims as a “skeptic convert” in order to appease the alarmists?
No, the whole deal – from “famous video” to “stunning conversion” – is a charade intended to promote his cause, and himself.

minty says (September 18, 2012 at 7:36 am)
This is going around facebook this morning.
——–
Well, quel surpris. From the group “Don’t Broadcast the Facts”, no less.
I claim the ‘dodgy psychic of the day’ badge from an earlier thread:
cui bono says (September 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm)
Watch out for the next dirty alarmist campaign: “Forecast the facts” attempting to threaten TV stations who use your services. Sigh.

Muller:
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

Very gentlemanly and calm, Anthony. I would have popped a gasket. But you did a great job sticking to the big picture of what is really going on. Muller has justified every negative comment made about him on WUWT by his willingness to perpetuate lies about his position on global warming and to misrepresent the science. Perhaps he cares about the jury of his living Berkeley peers, but history will not be kind to him.

After reading the interview, I’m left with the impression that the lines should have been more sharply drawn. I don’t see why you didn’t just come out and say that Muller is no skeptic and never was. Everyone talks about politeness, but one can be frank and definitive without being rude on national TV for the first time and maybe last time ( after all who knows, right?). So, I found this interview to be a little lacking in real substance unfortunately. I’d also like to ask if you were a “former ally” of Richard Muller, which statement seems like a gross exaggeration.

I don’t think Anthony is going to be too pleased with the PBS excuses piece for allowing Anthony to speak. It has absolute howlers, like “the Greenland Ice Sheet melting in 4 days” ?????http://www.netnebraska.org/node/815373

While I like Spencer Michaels and feel he nearly always gives a fair accounting, especially when you consider the pronounced bias of his employer, I think it was unfortunate that he focused the report on Muller. Despite his protestations, the work has not passed peer review as exemplified by Judith Curry and Ross McKittrick.
Certainly, his reliance on correlation to claim that CO2 must be the driver is lacking in empirical foundation.
Muller’s classification of himself as a converted skeptic is also suspect. I think it more accurate to say that he was more critic of the methodologies used in climate science than a pronounced disbeliever in the theory of AGW.

“In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.”
So, taking this at face value, should we conclude that this is the most fortunate thing that ever happened to humankind and the rest of the biosphere, albeit unknowingly ??
Or, should we conclude that we have a climate crisis of such enormous proportions that we need to tax the crap out of everyone to the tune of trillions of dollars to (pretend to) take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere so that we can go back to the temperatures of the little ice age ??

No offense to Muller, but with that bandaid on his head he kind of looked like the nutty professor. I also got the feeling that Muller’s daughter has brainswashed him – she sounded like the typical Berkeley climate alarmist to me.

RICHARD MULLER, University of California, Berkeley: In our world, we attribute the warming from 1753 to the present essentially exclusively to humans — not mostly, but exclusively.

Oh dear, I’m so embarrassed for him and his daughter. That statement is completely insupportable from his own UNPUBLISHED paper. There is no such research that could possibly support such a conclusion.

I’m with Tamara. The band-aid may be intended to give the impression that Muller is a scientific genius who has just drawn up plans for the flux capacitor. But it also gives the impression of someone with a tendency to fall and cut his head because of becoming less “balanced”.

“Climate Change Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role in Global Warming” – BS-meter behaves like a Geiger in an Uranium mine.
I know its about Muller and his spectacular conversion to the CO2-religion without looking at the picture (like I knew already the magic number 97 will appear. It is like “amen”). I cannot find anywhere a link that would shows “Muller doubts human role in Global Warming”. It does not exist, we know from Muller himself that he never doubted… (His famous video raises only flaws in “the science” shown by other skeptics before).
So the above sentence is a simple propaganda tool made by zealots to make themselves feel good about their religion: see, heretics who see “the science” got converted.
Umpf…. I wrote a complete answer, and then read the postings above where it is so calmly, competent, nicely put down, how I will not manage to write, so will only post a link to William’s answer. Thank you:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/17/the-full-pbs-newshour-interview-with-watts-muller-curry-and-others/#comment-1081085

theduke says:
Muller’s classification of himself as a converted skeptic is also suspect.
No. Not ‘suspect’. It is a lie. I think it more accurate to say that he was more critic of the methodologies used in climate science than a pronounced disbeliever in the theory of AGW.
The most charitable thing you can say about Muller’s faux ‘skepticism’ is that he recognized the hit that the warmist propaganda effort took from Anthony’s Surface Stations project and from Climategate, and he resolved to do something to salvage it from those insults.
To that end, he made himself out to be a “sceptic” and he attempted (more or less successfully) to co-opt people like Watts, Mosher, and Curry who had prominent involvement on the sceptic exposes of both topics. Then he did some half-assed reanalysis, and jumped right in on rehabilitating the CAGW propaganda with assinine conclusions that are in no way supported by the results that he can’t seem to get published.
All warming since 1753 is exclusively anthropogenic? OYG! Pick up your knees and stay over your skis, Fonzie!

Muller by his unsupported claim that man is solely or exclusively responsible for all the warming for the last 259 years[since 1753] greatly exaggerates what even other climate scientists are saying. Even IPCC only said, “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1950 has been one of warming”.[ See Summary to Policymakers, Report #4] That is a far cry from being solely or exclusively responsible. The American Meteorological Society in their last Information Statement dated 20 August, 2012 said , “The dominant cause of the warming since 1950 is human activities”. Clearly they are unwilling to go back to 1750’s nor state that man is the only cause , but merly a dominant cause in their opinion. Neither of the latter two parties nor Muller has offered any solid evidence [mostly opinions ]that man is responsible to any specific degree to make their claims and how they arrived at their claim.

But the fight over climate change is anything but academic. Whether the politicians listen to the 97 percent of scientists who say that it is real
3% of the scientists don’t believe climate changes?
PR people have brilliantly handled this meme.

the comments on the PBS speak volumes. The science-deniers are scared of “lill-ole-Anthony” and his logic and throw “he-is-not-a-scientist” comments around like that means that what goes up does not come down. Utterly pathetic. And On his self-legendary FB page, Mann, the emporer-with-no clothes-on celebrates…. hilarious…..

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/keeping-climate-stories-in-context.html
This is getting nasty very quickly.
“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post implied that Anthony Watts is a scientist. As we reported on the broadcast last night, he is not.”
Gee, not even a self funded gentlemen scientist? It seems PBS has finally come to the party, and have experienced their first flood of hate mail. Dirty fossil fuel funded PBS /sarc
Anthony Watts is an independent scientist. And the rest? “Not all funded climate scientists are corrupt, but most of them are, and all it takes is most of them.” -X Anomaly
Looking forward to the interviews with climate alarmists ….Who else it gonna be? Hari? Who wants to be ostracized today?

X Anomaly,
My handy desktop dictionary definition of “scientist”:
scientist |ˈsīəntist|
nouna person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
It doesn’t say you need a piece of paper to make it official. Anthony is published, and Muller’s papers were rejected. Who’s the real scientist?

Bob says (September 18, 2012 at 4:07 am):
“Do you believe in global warming? Sure, the last couple hundred years the globe has warmed.”
==================================================
Really? I wonder, how many people who spread this notion actually read the papers “proving” that.
Because I have read this one: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf and find it scientifically outrageous. So I have serious reasons to doubt that there is warming or even that it can be found out, whether there is warming or cooling or whatever.
May ask you what science exactly your opinion is based on?

wobble says:
September 18, 2012 at 8:02 amActually, is it possible that Muller was taking such heat for his famous video that he decided to make his current claims as a “skeptic convert” in order to appease the alarmists?
It’s also possible he was encouraged by being kissed on the forehead with a hockey stick.
/sarc

I’ve tried to post this on the PBS site but Disqus doesn’t allow me to log on (maybe because I don’t keep their tracking cookies?). Hope you don’t mind if I put it here…
When locals complained that “it’s hotter than it’s ever been” here in mid-Arizona, I decided to check local temperature records. I found that both high temperatures and annual average had declined since 1996. When I published results in the local paper – with no comment on my beliefs on climate change – I was called a “denier” in online comments. That seems to be the mentality of many of the commenters on PBS: if you refute any part of their religion with inconvenient truths then you are an infidel unworthy of free speech.
Like Watts, 97% of 77 self-described climatologists who were polled believe that humans bear some responsibility for global warming. It does not follow they all believe in empowered bureaucracies, higher taxes, and carbon markets that further enrich the rich. Muller doesn’t promote those ‘solutions’.
Why didn’t Michels interview Dr. Judith Curry, who actually worked with Dr. Muller on the Berkeley Earth project? Or Drs. Christy, Lindzen, Spencer, or Pielke Sr.? It looks like Anthony Watts was chosen as an exclusive ‘skeptic’ spokesperson in part because he doesn’t have science degrees.

Dr. Judith Curry seems a little pissed at the way she was characterised.
I feel a bit sorry for her, she’s no sceptic but because she’s not prepared to go to the extremes that some others do, she’s an apostate. A believer but still ostracised. Gotta be a bit tough.
DaveE.

ANTHONY WATTS: He has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.
That is pure gold, and going to get a fair bit of cut and pasting i would say.
So, now, with Anthony’s clarification of his views, it means we can also toss out most of Anthonys climate work, along with Tisdales, Archibalds, Moncktons, Balls, Eshenbachs, Evans’, Carters, Codlings, Plimers, Salbys etc etc etc. WUWT obviously won’t do that but it just highlights the EXTREME double standards and conformation bias exhibited here. Findings agreeing with Anthony are “game changers”, “nails in CO2 coffins” and the like, regardless of their peer review status and those that disagree are wrong regardless of same.
Anthonys statement above says Mullers results are invalid because they haven’t been peer reviewed, but if they were “peer reviewed” it would suddenly transform into a “pal review” from his new mates over on “The Team” and Anthony still wouldn’t accept them. Just like he won’t accept any of the studies that have already passed peer review to this point that disagree with him. Anthonys opinion is all that matters to him, peer review doesn’t come into it which is what made me bust out laughing when I read this. But his statement is correct (though incomplete), peer review is the first important step (but no guarantee) to successful science and we should only consider science that has passed peer review. I agree with him 100%.

Nick Kermode says:
September 18, 2012 at 8:05 pmANTHONY WATTS: He has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.
That is pure gold, and going to get a fair bit of cut and pasting i would say.
So, now, with Anthony’s clarification of his views, it means we can also toss out most of Anthonys climate work, along with Tisdales, Archibalds, Moncktons, Balls, Eshenbachs, Evans’, Carters, Codlings, Plimers, Salbys etc etc etc. WUWT obviously won’t do that but it just highlights the EXTREME double standards and conformation bias exhibited here. Findings agreeing with Anthony are “game changers”, “nails in CO2 coffins” and the like, regardless of their peer review status and those that disagree are wrong regardless of same.
Anthonys statement above says Mullers results are invalid because they haven’t been peer reviewed, but if they were “peer reviewed” it would suddenly transform into a “pal review” from his new mates over on “The Team” and Anthony still wouldn’t accept them.
—————————————————-
Nick, do you sincerely believe that UHI as we see it now in towns and cities was the same elevated value 50 years, 100 years, 150 years and 200 years ago? Do you really believe it?
What does Berkeley paper say?: UHI is irrelevant on trend, we do not observe the effect in the climate data. How can it be irrelevant if it is a high measurable value? Was this a constant value 200 years even with much smaller towns and cities? How many asphalted streets have there been 100 years ago? Does this not influence the thermometers around those streets?
Don’t you see why Muller’s paper did not pass peer review?
This is only one aspect even I as non specialist saw in the papers – and this is clearly addressed in Watts et all 2012 – you see there why is it so:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

1. Stop pretending that the peer review process is a level playing field. This field of “science” was invented by alarmist, and they keep mafia-like control over the process. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s simply the culture of the field.
2. Anthony and others have already been specific with respect to the trouble that they think Muller will have getting peer review. So, saying that ‘Muller’s paper isn’t peer reviewed’ is shorthand for saying ‘there’s a good reason why Muller’s paper isn’t peer reviewed’.
3. It’s interesting that you highlight the bias in celebrating a non-peer reviewed paper while criticizing other non-peer reviewed papers. Alarmists and the media do this ALL THE TIME. Hopefully, you’re fair enough to criticize both sides for doing this, however points 1 and 2 are germane.

Wobble,
Point 1. …… thank you for proving what I said so diligently.
Point 2. ….Not worth discussing, you have made your views on peer review quite clear.
Point 3. ….. No, non peer reviewed papers are not celebrated in the scientific literature. Agree about the media though. They are concerned about a good story. This Muller, Watts issue is a good story. I am certainly happy to, and indeed do, disregard both (in the interests of fairness, as you put it) on the grounds they are not peer reviewed
You would have to agree with me though regardless of your views on peer review. Anthony brought up his surface station work, then in the next breath says you cant be proven successful (which in science is accurate) without being peer reviewed. So it follows we can discount all the work I mentioned, not according to me, but according to Anthony. I just happen to agree with that. I also think that two totally conflicting sentences like this, and the fact that the second one disparages most of WUWT contributors and their work, some I mentioned, is hilarious hipocrisy in the extreme. You could put Anthony’s own quote below most postings here, on his own website. C’mon, thats funny 😉

Nick Kermode says:
September 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Anthony brought up his surface station work, then in the next breath says you cant be proven successful (which in science is accurate) without being peer reviewed.

First, admit that it’s a greater failure for a pro-alarmist paper to fail to get “acceptable” peer review. You would have to agree with me though regardless of your views on peer review.
Second, skeptical papers are constantly criticized for not being peer reviewed, so it’s ironic for to react so strongly to the same criticism.
Third, ignore my opinions regarding peer review all you want, but you know that I’m right about it.

Wobble…Its clear you don’t understand what I said. You are just firing shots in the dark. First I did not ignore your opinions, in fact I considered them so carefully I decided not to go down that worm hole with you, and its irrelevant to my point. Second I had no reaction to any criticism of Muller, in fact I said I’m happy for Muller to be considered invalid until (or if) his work passes peer review, just as Anthony suggested. But, playing by the same rules, Anthonys work (which certainly should not be referred to as Watts et al 2012 seeing as it hasn’t nor is it likely to be published this year) should be considered invalid also…by Anthony’s own standard. So my only point is if we are to only judge work (inquiries) as successful if they have been peer reviewed (Anthonys point NOT MINE) then that leaves the case for the sceptics looking very poor indeed, and like I said even if Tisdale, Monckton, Archibald and co are right Anthony says they are not successful as they are not peer reviewed. If we were to judge Anthony only by his peer reviewed work (which he suggests we should) we would find that he agrees with the accepted surface temperature record (Fall et al I believe). You seem to be looking for an argument but what I have pointed out is in black and white and is a severe case of an epic fail for someone in Anthony’s position who depends on non reviewed work almost entirely. Surely you can see the irony. Yours, and my views on peer review don’t come into it, I was just pointing out the hipocracy of Anthony’s views.

Nick Kermode says:
September 21, 2012 at 1:01 am
Its clear you don’t understand what I said.

I understood everything you said. In fact, it’s incredibly strange that you think I don’t. Your point is simplistic and easy to understand. It is you that doesn’t understand the significant nuances that make the issue less simplistic than you assume. I’m terribly sorry that it’s more complicated than you’re lazily assuming.

its irrelevant to my point. >/blockquote>
No, it’s quite germane to the point you were attempting to make.

I’m happy for Muller to be considered invalid until (or if) his work passes peer review

Except that Anthony didn’t say that it should be considered invalid until is passes peer review. Anthony said that Muller’s has yet to be considered a successful inquiry.

You seem to be looking for an argument but what I have pointed out is in black and white

Except that it’s not black and white. You’re simply blind to colors and shades of grey. It’s a greater failure for someone from Group A to fail to pass peer review than someone from Group B.
Regardless, the alarmist crowd (and therefore the media) never hesitate to highlight when skeptic opinions that haven’t passed peer review. That’s constantly reinforced. So, it’s actually hilarious that Anthony needs to remind them of the standard that THEY constantly use.

Yours, and my views on peer review don’t come into it

Keep pretending that issues with the peer review process in this discipline aren’t germane to Anthony’s comments if wish, but it’s only making you look foolish.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy